amscray

Littletygerkitty wrote:Being of the "fairer sex" I must say that there's not a chance that I would wear this. It's a nice design, and the colors are pleasing, but I'd prefer guys weren't imagining what my lungs look like under that shirt.

Honestly I don't own a single Woot shirt that doesn't make people stare at my chest. If I thought "someone might look at my hooters" every time I picked up a shirt, I'd never buy any-especially from Woot.

bolitb

tgentry wrote:Here's an example: you can create a character that slightly resembles Garfield to do a parodyabout Garfield. You can't create your own comic strip with a character that looks like Garfield if you're not parodying the original comic. That's the difference. On the one hand you're commenting on someone else's intellectual property, on the other you're infringing upon it. If the artist was clearly parodying Mini Moose I doubt it would have been rejected (as long as there were some clear visual differences between the the new version from the original). As it is the character looks a lot like the original without any commentary or parody of it.

Hi tgentry. Got a question in response to your parody statement. When I was making my "Violent Hare Shirt" (also rejected), I was thinking it would get rejected (which it did). Now, what about the Gummi shirt, is it considered a parody (commenting) because it is the Gummi Bears in an environment we do not normally expect them in?

I am new to this whole thing. My son's and I come up with a shirt design, lay it out and then submit it on Friday. They don't get too motivated by being rejected and I want to avoid it from now on.

tgentry

jmmbell1987 wrote:I usually love your work, tgentry, but I'm not really seeing the theme with this one. I'm hoping woot expected more from this theme than simply more tree shirts to add to the countless others out there. And while it's certainly a better illustration than most tree shirts (and a change from the usual round, deciduous tree designs) but I don't think I'd wear it.

It's very specific to the theme. Giant Sequoia's appear naturally in one area in the world, and the Sequoia's in this image are based on specific trees in Sequoia National Park. I even added details to make it even more park specific. For instance there's a small sign in front of the main one (known as The President), a giant tunnel bored through one just like at the park, I even put in some lines to suggest fencing of some sort. How much more on-topic could it be?

tgentry

Likewise, I have the same issue with this one as tgentry's: I expect more from a "national park" theme than trees with no other context in their setting. These entries could both have been entered into the flora or tree derbies without any changes.

As posted in my own thread, my design is very park specific, with details that appear only in that park, with a species of tree that appears naturally in one area in the entire world. Mine could only be one place in the world, Sequoia National Park.

skirochester

tgentry wrote:It's very specific to the theme. Giant Sequoia's appear naturally in one area in the world, and the Sequoia's in this image are based on specific trees in Sequoia National Park. I even added details to make it even more park specific. For instance there's a small sign in front of the main one (known as The President), a giant tunnel bored through one just like at the park, I even put in some lines to suggest fencing of some sort. How much more on-topic could it be?

I can't believe you have to answer "on theme" questions this week. This shirt is more on theme than any other one in the derby!

atshephe

jerroul wrote:I see a similar base concept, but different artistry, different intent/treatment, and to me, at least, a totally different "feel". As I said above, on Friday, my first reaction to this shirt is that it is a visualization of how my lungs feel when I first wake up in the morning camping up in the redwoods of Sequoia or Kings Canyon National Parks.
The other shirt, while also having "lungs" as its starting place, is not saying that to me, in my opinion. It is rather a comment on trees as the breathing mechanism of Earth, ie lungs. I confess I do not understand the Roman Candle reference in the other shirt's title, so maybe I am missing something that those who are using it as proof of "unoriginality" can see.

Just as an FYI, Roman Candle is a band and I believe the shirt is for the CD "Oh Tall Tree in the Air".

kylemittskus

No. I am very glad that they rejected this shirt, not because I didn't like it (although I didn't) but because it deserved to get rejected. However, I give woot only a small amount of credit since they really couldn't ignore that other shirt.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jmmbell1987

tgentry wrote:As posted in my own thread, my design is very park specific, with details that appear only in that park, with a species of tree that appears naturally in one area in the entire world. Mine could only be one place in the world, Sequoia National Park.

Interesting. In that case, I retract what I said, including on your shirt's thread.

jmmbell1987

tgentry wrote:It's very specific to the theme. Giant Sequoia's appear naturally in one area in the world, and the Sequoia's in this image are based on specific trees in Sequoia National Park. I even added details to make it even more park specific. For instance there's a small sign in front of the main one (known as The President), a giant tunnel bored through one just like at the park, I even put in some lines to suggest fencing of some sort. How much more on-topic could it be?

I apologize for my ignorance. Adding to my shame is that I grew up in California, and I probably should've known all this. I never realized that sequoias only grew in that one park.

kylemittskus

skirochester wrote:I can't believe you have to answer "on theme" questions this week. This shirt is more on theme than any other one in the derby!

nice illustration by the way. and congrats on today's print!

I disagree with that. It is surely on theme, although so are many many other shirts this week. TGentry took the second part of the derby prompt and not the first. Great skills. I hate this derby though -- much like I've hated the derbies lately -- so no buy/vote.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

Josephus

tgentry wrote:As posted in my own thread, my design is very park specific, with details that appear only in that park, with a species of tree that appears naturally in one area in the entire world. Mine could only be one place in the world, Sequoia National Park.

Actually, they have some of those trees in London. They've gotten pretty big by now, since they were planted there many, many years ago.

And I had a sequoia growing in my back yard in Tennessee in 1994. This was in a ranch house in Murphreesboro Tennessee. I hardly think that they were the first to grow Sequoias, and certainly it has been long enough since they were discovered that they are growing in a variety of places all over the world by now, and getting to be pretty big. As big as the one you drew? doubtful, (please just ignore the rest of this ill-informed drivel: but I have to say that the idea that your design is legit because the trees only grow naturally in northern California is like saying that Pandas don't bring to mind the San Diego Zoo in California or the National Zoo in Wash DC, because they only live in nature in China. It's really a pretty thin argument you have, as far as I can see.)

edit: Actually, my argument is the thin one. Shamefacedly, I have to concede that the way he has constructed the design makes it certainly quite well on target, on theme, certainly within woot's guidelines for this contest, most certainly not a game reference, with no National Park named, having nothing to do with Mario brothers or any actual video games, or specifically naming National Parks, quite certainly on theme and fitting the description also, and really nicely drawn to boot. whew!

tgentry

bolitb wrote:Hi tgentry. Got a question in response to your parody statement. When I was making my "Violent Hare Shirt" (also rejected), I was thinking it would get rejected (which it did). Now, what about the Gummi shirt, is it considered a parody (commenting) because it is the Gummi Bears in an environment we do not normally expect them in?

I am new to this whole thing. My son's and I come up with a shirt design, lay it out and then submit it on Friday. They don't get too motivated by being rejected and I want to avoid it from now on.

As to the Gummi Bear shirt, I can think of a few reasons why this would be safe from rejection. First off the gummi bears in that entry don't look exactly like real life gummi bear snacks. Also important is that, although this entry has them in cartoon form, they don't look like the cartoon version of the Disney Gummi Bear cartoons. They are visually ambiguous multi-colored bears. In addition they are parodying the idea of a bear made out of gummi material. There's some form of comment on source reference. I think all of these reasons keep it safe.

tgentry

Josephus wrote:Actually, they have some of those trees in London. They've gotten pretty big by now, since they were planted there many, many years ago.

And I had a sequoia growing in my back yard in Tennessee in 1994. This was in a ranch house in Murphreesboro Tennessee. I hardly think that they were the first to grow Sequoias, and certainly it has been long enough since they were discovered that they are growing in a variety of places all over the world by now, and getting to be pretty big. As big as the one you drew? doubtful, but I have to say that the idea that your design is legit because the trees only grow naturally in northern California is like saying that Pandas don't bring to mind the San Diego Zoo in California or the National Zoo in Wash DC, because they only live in nature in China. It's really a pretty thin argument you have, as far as I can see.

Hence the added details specific to the park. (and note I said occurring naturally). Sorry Joe, again, this could only be at Sequoia National Park. Like you I searched for info on the Sequoia and I found out that they have been planted elsewhere. But A) this is a forest of them, and B) these are specific trees found in that park. It's not thin at all, in fact it's one of the most specific references to a park in the entire derby. While I think there's a lot of entries that have absolutely zilch to do with National Parks, this is not one of them.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.